From: Yuqian Li <liyuqian@google.com>

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:51:27 -0500

Message-ID: <CACrk9yQMGGN4U-D5NOdZSK8FS6z7epGQKvFFRhCbkAtvhZu7zw@mail.gmail.com>

To: www-svg@w3.org

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 22:25:07 UTC

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:51:27 -0500

Message-ID: <CACrk9yQMGGN4U-D5NOdZSK8FS6z7epGQKvFFRhCbkAtvhZu7zw@mail.gmail.com>

To: www-svg@w3.org

As https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/filters.html#feTurbulenceElement specifies, feTurbulence creates a Perlin turbulance, which should be uniform in all directions (fGradient should be uniformly distributed on a ball). However, it seems that the specific implementation (source code) in the W3C Recommendation violates such uniformity: it directly normalizes a random vector from [-1, -1] x [1, 1] to a unit vector (so it's uniformly distributed on a box, rather than a ball). It generates more diagonal gradient than horizontal/vertical ones. In Perlin's paper, it's recommended to discard vectors with length greater than 1, and only normalizes the remaining ones to unit vectors as the random gradient. (There are many ways of generating uniformly random vectors on a ball; the 3rd answer in this Q/A <http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/44689/how-to-find-a-random-axis-or-unit-vector-in-3d> is what's described here; it's probably the cheapest one for our 2D cases.) For the difference, please see the attached images. In full_original_circle.png, there are more diagonal white lines than vertical/horizontal lines; if we rotate it by 45 degrees, we notice a significant increase of vertical/horizontal lines and decrease of diagonal lines in full_original_circle_45.png. On the other hand, if we properly do the normalization (discard vectors with length greater than 1), the full_normalize_circle.png and full_normalize_circle_45.png both have similar number of diagonal lines and vertical/horizontal lines. The following is the original W3C implementation: for(k = 0; k < 4; k++) { for(i = 0; i < BSize; i++) { uLatticeSelector[i] = i; for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) fGradient[k][i][j] = (double)(((lSeed = random(lSeed)) % (BSize + BSize)) - BSize) / BSize; s = double(sqrt(fGradient[k][i][0] * fGradient[k][i][0] + fGradient[k][i][1] * fGradient[k][i][1])); fGradient[k][i][0] /= s; fGradient[k][i][1] /= s; } } And here's the properly normalized implementation that generates gradient uniformly in all directions: for(k = 0; k < 4; k++) { for(i = 0; i < BSize; i++) { uLatticeSelector[i] = i; for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) fGradient[k][i][j] = (double)(((lSeed = random(lSeed)) % (BSize + BSize)) - BSize) / BSize; s = double(sqrt(fGradient[k][i][0] * fGradient[k][i][0] + fGradient[k][i][1] * fGradient[k][i][1])); if (s > BSize) { i--; // discard the current random vector; try it again. continue; } fGradient[k][i][0] /= s; fGradient[k][i][1] /= s; } } Thanks, Yuqian

(image/png attachment: full_original_circle.png)

(image/png attachment: full_original_circle_45.png)

(image/png attachment: full_normalize_circle.png)

(image/png attachment: full_normalize_circle_45.png)

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0
: Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:08 UTC
*